Global.oup.com



AMERICAN POLITICAL THOUGHTKeith E. WhittingtonSupplementary MaterialChapter 7: The Gilded Age – America and the WorldAndrew Carnegie, Americanism versus Imperialism (1899)Andrew Carnegie was nearing the end of his career in business when the Spanish-American War broke out. His steel works had often benefited from American arms purchases, and he had little to say about foreign policy prior to the war. As the war wound down, however, Carnegie leapt into the public fray vociferously arguing against American annexation of the Philippines. Despite his general support for the Republican Party, Carnegie was appalled at the thought that a war that began in support of a Cuban independence movement would end with American troops putting down such a movement half a world away. He joined the newly formed Anti-Imperialist League, wrote often against administration policy, and even flirted with supporting the presidential run of the populist Democrat William Jennings Bryan on an anti-imperialism platform (instead Carnegie declined to support any candidate in 1900). Like others, Carnegie largely withdrew from the controversy once annexation had been accomplished and American troops became engaged in fighting on the island.What argument does Carnegie offer against taking possession of territory in Asia? Would his arguments work as well against territorial acquisitions in Latin America? Why does Carnegie think that Americanism is inconsistent with imperialism? How might imperial ambitions lead to dangerous foreign entanglements? Are Carnegie’s fears avoidable? What are the consequences of imperial overreach? Are there circumstances in which occupying distant territories would be a security asset rather than a security risk? Would Carnegie’s arguments suggest that the United States should not have maintained a long-term military base in Manila? Are overseas bases different than distant territorial possessions?For several grave reasons I regard possessions in the Far East as fraught with nothing but disaster to the Republic. Only one of these, however, can now be considered – the dangers of war and of the almost constant rumors and threats of war to which all nations interested in the Far East are subject. . . . . . . It is obvious that the United States cannot contest any question or oppose any demand of any one of its rivals which secures the neutrality of the other powers, as France, Germany and Russia did that of Britain. She cannot stand alone. . . .. . . .I say . . . that no American statesman should place his country in any position which it could not defend, relying only upon its own strong arm. Its arm at present is not much to depend upon; its 81 ships of war are too trifling to be taken into account; and as for its army – what are its 56,000 regulars? Its volunteers are being disbanded. Both its Navy and its Army are good for one thing only – for easy capture or destruction by either one of the stronger powers. It is the protection of Britain, and that alone, upon which we have to rely – in the Far East – a slender thread indeed. Upon the shifting sands of alliances we are to have our only foundation.The writer is not of those who believe that the Republic cannot make herself strong enough to walk alone, and to hold her own, and to be an imperial power of herself, and by herself, and not the weak protégé of a real imperial power. But, in order to make herself an imperial power she must do as imperial powers do – she must create a navy equal to the navy of any other power. She must have hundreds of thousands of regular troops to cooperate with the navy.If she devoted herself exclusively and unceasingly to creating a navy equal to that of Britain, for instance, which is what she will need, if she is not to be at the mercy of stronger powers, that will be the work of more than twenty years. . . If ever the Republic falls from her industrial ideals and descends to the level of the war ideals of Europe she will be supreme. I have no doubt of that. . . . But what I submit is that at present the Republic is an industrial hive, without an adequate navy and without soldiers; that she therefore must have a protector; and that if she is to figure in the East she cannot be in any sense an imperial power at all. Imperialism implies naval and military force behind; moral force, education, civilization, are not the backbone of Imperialism; these are the moral forces which make for the higher civilization, for Americanism – the foundation for Imperialism is brutal physical strength, fighting men with material forces, warships and artillery.. . . . Alliances of fighting power form and dissolve with the questions which arise from time to time. The patriotism of race lies deeper and is not disturbed by waves upon the surface. The present era of good feeling between the old and the new lands means that the home of Shakespeare and Burns will never be invaded without other than native-born Britons being found in its defense. It means that the giant child, the Republic, is not to be set upon by a combination of other races and pushed to its destruction without a growl coming from the old lion which will shake the earth. But it should not mean that either the old land or the new binds itself to support the other in all its designs, either at home or abroad, but that the Republic shall remain the friend of all nations and the ally of none; that, being free today of all foreign entanglements, she shall not undertake the support Britain, who has these to deal with. . . . I would make no alliances with any power under any circumstances that can be imagined; I would have the Republic remain the friend of all powers. That has been her policy from the beginning, and so it should remain.. . . .[A “free and independent” Philippines under the temporary protection of the United States is the best policy.] If left to themselves they will make mistakes, but what nation does not? Riot and bloodshed may break out – in which nation are these absent? Certainly not in our own; but the inevitable result will be a government better suited to the people than any that our soldiers and their officers could ever give.Thus only can the Republic stand true to its pledges, that the sword was drawn only in the cause of humanity and not for territorial aggrandizement, and true to the fundamental principles upon which she rests: “that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed;” that the flag, wherever it floats, shall proclaim “the equality of the citizen,” “one man’s privilege every man’s right” – “that all men are created equal,” not that under its sway part only shall be citizens with rights and part only subjects without rights – freemen and serfs, not all freemen. Such is the issue between Americanism and Imperialism. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download